Let me be clear: I think it’s a wonderful thing that women of any political stripe can run for higher office. Earlier generations fought hard for women to have this opportunity and Hillary Clinton will serve as role model for many women with political aspirations and a thick skin.

Democrats frequently claim that electing more women is important because female lawmakers are more attuned to issues that matter to women and their families: health care, workplace discrimination, education. But here’s the problem: Clinton, like so many female Democrats, supports legislation that will actually hurt women.

One piece of legislation stands out in particular. In January 2009, Senator Clinton sponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA). This was likely more of a nod to feminist groups on the left than a serious effort on Clinton’s part (as similar bills pop up every couple of years); but it’s a perfect example of why Clinton’s gender would never be enough to get my vote.

Despite the bill’s title, the PFA would not have created equal pay. It simply would have expanded the definition of “wage discrimination,” made it easier to file class-action lawsuits, and opened businesses up to greater litigation and uncertainty—all of which would have been devastating to job creation. Ultimately, this bill would have hurt women by perpetuating the myth of the wage gap, making women far more costly to employ, and advancing the narrative that women are a victim class in need of special government protections.

While Democrats framed this in terms of “protecting” women, they overlooked the fact that women and their families benefit tremendously from a flexible work environment. For instance, some women may choose to accept a lower salary if it means they have the ability to work part-time, have flexible hours, or work from home. The PFA would have discouraged employers from making such options available. (And, no doubt, as Clinton told Marie Clare in an interview in 2012, she values those choices that so many women (and men) benefit from today.)

Certainly Democrats are focused—perhaps preoccupied—with sending women to Washington in a way the Right at least ought to consider. They seek out qualified women, ask them over and over again to run, and train them. And they’ve done a darn good job at it. But it goes without saying that, for me, having a woman in the White House is only really exciting if she favors reining in big government.

The PFA never had anything to do with the little people who create jobs or the little people who fill them. It had everything to do with empowering government (bureaucrats, lawyers, courts) to sweep in and second-guess the terms of those arrangements. Cha-ching.

The fact that Democrats had to exploit a grievance-group to pass the law is… typical. Clinton’s support for such a scheme? Typical.

Just the fact that she’s a liar (see Benghazi) and incompetent in four years as Secretary of State is enough to disqualify her from any future office. She may run, I sure hope she doesn’t even win the donkey nomination.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that she won’t run in 2016.

Sometimes there’s background noise that one picks up that can be significant. I remember a story from 2008 and Hillary is on the phone to Bill complaining about the rigors of campaigning and she points out that when he did it, he was 20 years younger.

Hillary Clinton will be nearly 70 in 2016. I’m not saying that she’s too old to run, nobody is who has the fire to do it. But she might be ready to hang it up. She knows exactly how rigorous a presidential run is, she just may not be game for it anymore.

Someone once wrote, “Before one can become St. George, one first needs a dragon.” Democrats win elections and gain power by spinning tales of damsels in distress and marauding dragons and promising to rescue the former and slay the latter.

The problem for the Democrats is that the laws, regulations, and programs they have passed in order to save imaginary victims and punish imaginary villains have created real victims – victims of government abuse. Republican politicians need to start putting names and faces to those victims and telling their stories.

Richard Fulmer: Someone once wrote, “Before one can become St. George, one first needs a dragon.” Democrats win elections and gain power by spinning tales of damsels in distress and marauding dragons and promising to rescue the former and slay the latter.

Richard Fulmer: Someone once wrote, “Before one can become St. George, one first needs a dragon.” Democrats win elections and gain power by spinning tales of damsels in distress and marauding dragons and promising to rescue the former and slay the latter.

Richard Fulmer: Someone once wrote, “Before one can become St. George, one first needs a dragon.” Democrats win elections and gain power by spinning tales of damsels in distress and marauding dragons and promising to rescue the former and slay the latter.

It should be noted that Republicans do that too. · 19 minutes ago

2 minutes ago

Libertarians don’t need to make up dragons. Government already provides plenty.

Richard Fulmer: Someone once wrote, “Before one can become St. George, one first needs a dragon.” Democrats win elections and gain power by spinning tales of damsels in distress and marauding dragons and promising to rescue the former and slay the latter.

It should be noted that Republicans do that too. · 19 minutes ago

49 minutes ago

Reply #2:

Yeah, usually Republicans and Democrats don’t let the LP on the ballot.

Richard Fulmer: Someone once wrote, “Before one can become St. George, one first needs a dragon.” Democrats win elections and gain power by spinning tales of damsels in distress and marauding dragons and promising to rescue the former and slay the latter.

It should be noted that Republicans do that too. · 19 minutes ago

49 minutes ago

Reply #2:

Yeah, usually Republicans and Democrats don’t let the LP on the ballot. · January 7, 2014 at 7:21am

Richard Fulmer: Someone once wrote, “Before one can become St. George, one first needs a dragon.” Democrats win elections and gain power by spinning tales of damsels in distress and marauding dragons and promising to rescue the former and slay the latter.

It should be noted that Republicans do that too. · 19 minutes ago

49 minutes ago

Reply #2:

Yeah, usually Republicans and Democrats don’t let the LP on the ballot. · January 7, 2014 at 7:21am

Richard Fulmer: Someone once wrote, “Before one can become St. George, one first needs a dragon.” Democrats win elections and gain power by spinning tales of damsels in distress and marauding dragons and promising to rescue the former and slay the latter.

It should be noted that Republicans do that too. · 19 minutes ago

49 minutes ago

Reply #2:

Yeah, usually Republicans and Democrats don’t let the LP on the ballot. · January 7, 2014 at 7:21am

1 hour ago

Mockery only seems appropriate if you think its morally acceptable for the two major parties to preserve their duopoly to lock minority parties out of the process.

I mean, I get why people are cool with it. The two parties present us with such awesome choices (for ex. Romney v. Obama) and our country is not at all a mess economically or financially.

It’s more than a serious issue. It’s a scandal that nobody gives a [expletive] about.

I’m a Jeffersonian. I believe in a free market place of ideas. I have no problem having a Westboro Baptist Chruch party or an Nazi party or even a furry party on the ballot, because they’d be so marginalized that they wouldn’t matter.

And minor parties often are.

But people should be given a choice, and the way the major parties play games with ballot access is unfair and unrepublican.

It’s more than a serious issue. It’s a scandal that nobody gives a [expletive] about.

Because we don’t agree with you that not supporting a spoiler run when someone fails to get on the ballot for the party they ran for is a scandal, no matter if they identify as some sort of a minority.

Fred, you are wrong here, “Most women are inherently conservative, if not politically, then certainly temperamentally, and more so as they age.” I would agree that conservative women are more reliably conservative but would disagree that women as a whole are. Their voting record does not reflect that. Far too many who are elected are inherently liberal, with easy path to victory in gerrymandered districts while many more think they can ride to victory just by running as a woman using the same argument posed here. But what exactly is a woman’s issue? And how do you address them? Answer those questions and a discussion will break out.